| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This had been broken ever since 2854, because we can't write tests for
restore-snapshots at the moment.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Typo introduced in 2854.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now that we no longer have non-shared addresses, we can just always
track refcounts for all addresses.
Phew!
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This brings back some of the complexity I thought I'd gotten rid of in
2799.
The regression brought home the point that I'd forgotten to write tests
for those bits. Written now.
It also brought home the point that our cleanup in 'reload' has always
been hacky and incomplete.
It's also ugly that those tests in the sandbox/ and edit/ apps need
changing (particularly when the test is about how the output doesn't
change).
|
| |
|
|
| |
Fix test failures caused by 2804 in sandbox/ app.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm dropping all mention of 'recipe' terminology from the Readme. That
way I hope to avoid further bike-shedding discussions while I very
slowly decide on the right terminology with my students.
I could be smarter in my error messages and use 'recipe' when code uses
it and 'function' otherwise. But what about other words like ingredient?
It would all add complexity that I'm not yet sure is worthwhile. But I
do want separate experiences for veteran programmers reading about Mu on
github and for people learning programming using Mu.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Thanks Nicolas Léveillé for running up against this bug:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11094837
(Also noticed and fixed several subsidiary issues. This whole aspect
doesn't seem fully baked yet.)
|
| |
|
|
| |
Reorganize further to make edit/008-sandbox-test more self-contained.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If you restore 2 sandboxes, the first render was setting
response-starting-row-on-screen on both, without ever rendering a
response. If the lower sandbox contained a print and rendered the screen
instead of the response, the original response-starting-row-on-screen
was never reset. If the process of running the sandboxes caused the
lower sandbox's title bar to move below the now-stale
response-starting-row-on-screen[1], editing the lower sandbox no longer
works.
[1] (Either because the upper sandbox prints to screen as well (causing
the first F4 to move the lower sandbox down by several lines), or
because a fresh sandbox is created with several lines before the first
F4 is hit.)
Current solution: never set response-starting-row-on-screen during
reload (or otherwise when there's no response).
This is hard to test right now because 'restore' is not a tested
interface, and I can't come up with another situation where the
response-starting-row-on-screen goes stale. So I'm now trying to keep
all changes to response-starting-row-on-screen close together. Another
idea is to add a check that the click row lies below the
response-starting row *and* above the start of the next sandbox. (But
what if there's no next sandbox?)
(This bug is really a regression, introduced last Sep in 2163.)
|
| |
|
|
| |
Moving back to wrapped line was overflowing the right margin.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I spent the longest time trying to understand what bug 2268 fixed. But
it's being tested now.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Somehow this never transferred over from the Arc version until now.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'd feared that the refcount errors in the previous commit meant there
was a bug in my ref-counting, so I temporarily used new variables rather
than reusing existing ones. But it turns out the one remaining place
memory corruption can happen is when recipes don't use default-scope and
so end up sharing memory. Don't I have a warning for this?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When I first forked it from the edit/ app, I wasn't sure how to deal
with changing the recipe side when the only way the program accesses it
is with the untestable 'restore' hack. Now we introduce a little hook
into event-loop and pass in any updated recipe side directly.
In the process I've cleaned up several minor stylistic inconsistencies
between edit/ and sandbox/ apps.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Finish 2595.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This required completely redesigning scrolling.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm now thinking about how to support scrolling on the sandbox side.
Caleb's idea is to use down-arrow inside the sandbox editor, and then
"scroll off" the editor to the top of each successive sandbox. I think
I'll reserve the white background as the cursor color in that situation.
I wonder if I should just undo all the support for sandbox labels since
yesterday. Labels are perhaps superfluous once I support scrolling and
reorder sandboxes to always throw ones with errors up top. But then you
can end up scrolling through lots of tests without any sense of how far
down you are. So the other approach is to keep labels and try to keep
them stable, not reorder them.
Looking further ahead I'm going to need a way to jump to a specific
sandbox. Maybe instead of reordering sandboxes I should just
automatically render from the first sandbox with error. Maybe show the
number of failed sandboxes in the status instead of the index of the
first failure.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
See `cannot_write_tests_for`.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It also seems useful that the number maps to the name of the file the
sandbox is saved in. However this mapping is currently a happy accident
and not actually tested.
I'm starting to switch gears and help make the editor useable with
many many sandboxes. This is just the first step of several.
|
| |
|
|
| |
I had to undo some over-zealous changes in 2576.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the one major refinement on the C programming model I'm planning
to introduce in mu. Instead of Rust's menagerie of pointer types and
static checking, I want to introduce just one new type, and use it to
perform ref-counting at runtime.
So far all we're doing is updating new's interface. The actual
ref-counting implementation is next.
One implication: I might sometimes need duplicate implementations for a
recipe with allocated vs vanilla addresses of the same type. So far it
seems I can get away with just always passing in allocated addresses;
the situations when you want to pass an unallocated address to a recipe
should be few and far between.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Still can't print non-integer numbers, so this is a bit hacky.
The big consequence is that you can't print literal characters anymore
because of our rules about how we pick which variant to statically
dispatch to. You have to save to a character variable first.
Maybe I can add an annotation to literals..
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
2473 was the final bugfix holding this back.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Not entirely happy with this. Maybe we'll find a better name. But at
least it's an improvement.
One part I *am* happy with is renaming string-replace to replace,
string-append to append, etc. Overdue, now that we have static dispatch.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Great that it just worked after the previous commit.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
We still can't have decent tests in this variant.
Thanks Jack and Caleb Couch.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Introducing a new 'newlayer' tag like 'todo', to record places where a
nascent new layer might be starting to bud off.
|